wright.indd


276 College & Research Libraries May 2004

       
       
      
    

 

         
        

 
        

 

          

   
    

   
  

   
    

     
   

     
      

    
     

    

     

    

     
 

      
    

       
    

   
      

     
     

       

     
     

The Academic Library as a Gateway to 
the Internet: An Analysis of the Extent 
and Nature of Search Engine Access 
from Academic Library Home Pages 

Carol A. Wright 

Academic libraries have the opportunity through their Web pages to 
present to the university community recommended sites and appropriate 
techniques for searching the Internet. But in the design and organization 
of home pages, academic libraries often provide inadequate navigational 
paths to sites that provide search engine selection and evaluation crite-
ria. The author conducted a study of the home pages of 114 academic 
libraries that belong to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to 
determine their paths to Internet search engines.This paper presents the 
study results and makes recommendations for improvement. 

ost academic librarians regard 
the library as the primary 
gateway to information for 
the university community. 

They believe that they have a significant 
responsibility for information literacy 
instruction, specifically for the selec-
tion, use, and evaluation of multiple 
information resources, including Internet 
resources. But are libraries truly maximiz-
ing their ability to present the Internet 
to users in an organized manner? In the 
presentation of collections and services 
on library home pages, libraries o en 
provide inadequate paths to resources, 
guides for selection, evaluation and use 
of search engines, and other naviga-
tional tools necessary for users to make 
intelligent and informed choices about 

resources beyond those owned and li-
censed in the institution’s collections. A 
library’s Web page is the most common 
vehicle for the delivery of instruction and 
information. “In the digital environment, 
a library web site is the virtual public 
face—the quasi-equivalent of the front 
door, signage, pathfinders, collections, 
services, and, to an extent, people.”1 
Yet, library Web pages o en fail to serve 
as the campus information gateway to 
external resources. “The fact that the 
homepage is so o en not the entry point 
underscores that what we think of as our 
homepage is not relevant to our users’ 
needs.”2 Proficiency in the identification, 
selection, and use of Internet resources 
is a primary information literacy goal, 
clearly stated in the Information Literacy 

Carol A. Wright is Education and Behavioral Sciences Librarian at Pennsylvania State University Librar-
ies; e-mail: caw4@psu.edu. 

276 

mailto:caw4@psu.edu


 

  
    

     

       

     

      

 

   
     
    
    

  
   

     

 
     

     

    

     
     

     
   

    

     
     

     
      

     
     

    
    

     

     
     

   

       

     

    
      

       
     

The Academic Library as a Gateway to the Internet 277 

Competency Standards for Higher Edu-
cation.3 Academic librarians assert their 
role in support of the instructional and 
research mission of their institutions by 
developing comprehensive instruction 
programs that integrate the Internet 
with licensed library resources. For the 
library to support its claim as a gateway 
to information, in addition to providing 
access to its own purchased and licensed 
resources, it also should design its Web 
page to serve as a gateway for students 
to learn how to identify Internet search 
engines and strategies. 

The purpose of this study is to de-
termine the manner in which academic 
research libraries present links on their 
Web sites to search engines and guides 
to using the Internet. This study ana-
lyzed the library home pages of the 114 
academic libraries of the Association of 
Research Libraries (ARL). Data were col-
lected during August 2002 and reviewed 
in June 2003. 

Literature Review 
The Current Information Environment 
for College Students: The Reality of the 
Internet 
The virtual library is described as having 
“created an information environment 
that is complex and fluid, connective 
and interactive, diverse and unpredict-
able, where the professional provision 
of information is no longer constrained 
by time and place.” 4 Recent studies have 
indicated that undergraduates regard 
the Internet as a primary information 
resource and that reliance on the Internet 
is increasing. The Pew Internet Project’s 
“The Internet Goes to College” reports 
that nearly three-quarters (73%) of college 
students said they use the Internet more 
than the library, whereas only nine per-
cent said they use the library more than 
the Internet for information-searching.5 
The OCLC White Paper on the Information 

Habits of College Students reports that 
students say their first choices among 
Web resources are search engines and 
course-specific Web sites.6 Forty-two 
percent report using search engines for 
every assignment, whereas 37 percent 
use search engines for most assignments. 
These numbers are in striking contrast to 
those who report using a campus library 
Web site for every assignment (11%) and 
for most assignments (30%). This study 
also reported that more than 90 percent 
of students surveyed access the Web re-
motely from home computers, 75 percent 
of college students have confidence in 
their abilities to locate information for 
their assignments, and 70 percent feel that 
they are successful at finding what they 
need most of the time. 

In “How and Why Are Libraries 
Changing,” Denise Troll noted that un-
dergraduate students appear to value 
convenience and delivery speed more 
than quality of information.7 She con-
firmed the Web use data reported in the 
OCLC White Paper by reporting that 
focus group and survey research indicates 
that undergraduate students typically 
first turn to popular Web search engines 
when they need to find information and 
that there is no evidence that students use 
more than one search engine when they 
look for information. But she painted an 
even more challenging picture by noting 
that these search engines index only the 
“surface Web,” where less than seven 
percent of the information is appropriate 
for educational or scholarly purposes. 
The “deep Web” is even less accessible 
to students who do not understand the 
distinction. Even when students do un-
derstand the limitations of the informa-
tion they find on the Web, Troll noted 
that “the growing concern that many 
undergraduate students may be search-
ing only a fraction of the web to complete 
their assignments, ignoring entirely the 



 

    
    

     
    

     

    

       

 

     

     
       

     

     

      

      

   

 
       

 
     

 
    

     
    

      
 

  
 

      

 

   

     
    

   
     

      

      
    

     
     

     
      

      

      

278 College & Research Libraries 

books, journals, databases, full-text digital 
resources and other scholarly materials 
provided by the library. Because of easy 
access to the web, undergraduates are 
using library collections and services 
less than in the past and, in the absence 
of quality information and tools on the 
surface, this may imperil the quality of 
student learning.” This student behavior 
was confirmed by Deborah J. Grimes and 
Carol H. Boening, who, through inter-
views with students, learned that many 
bypassed library resources, went directly 
to the Web, and described their Internet 
search as “very easy” despite the fact that 
their sources were of lesser quality than 
expected.8 In an environment where no 
single Web search engine indexes more 
than 16 percent of the surface Web, these 
user behaviors do not suggest satisfactory 
search results.9 

Faculty Experiences with Student Internet 
Use 
Among faculty, there are significant dif-
ferences by discipline and faculty rank 
in the acceptance and use of the Web. 
Faculty are frequently skeptical of the 
reliability of the information and about 
their students’ ability to evaluate it.10 
Although students consider themselves 
to be able users of Internet information 
technologies, there is a gap between what 
faculty expect and what students deliver. 
By assuming that students come to their 
classes proficient in using electronic and 
Internet resources, or that other areas on 
campus such as the libraries are filling 
this need, faculty may not give adequate 
instruction or guidelines to students for 
satisfactory completion of assignments. 
Susan Davis Herring found that “many 
faculty either restrict their students’ use 
of the web, direct students to specific sites, 
or require students to obtain permission 
to use specific sites.”11 She suggested that 
because “many faculty have doubts about 

May 2004 

students’ ability to use the web and the 
information they find there effectively, 
this is an appropriate point for the intro-
duction of information literacy training 
by library faculty.” 

Usability of the Library Web Site for Col-
lege and University Students 
Many studies have reported the dif-
ficulties users experience in navigating 
academic library Web sites. In a focus 
group study at Texas A&M, researchers 
found that “there was an obvious need 
for clearer, simpler terminology to facili-
tate navigation and decision making.” 12 
Mark Spivey also has noted the need for 
clear terminology, stating “since success-
ful navigation of a large library web site 
depends on the clarity of the home page, 
its vocabulary deserves scrutiny by man-
agers of these internet sites.”13 

Use of library jargon is a significant 
obstacle to successful use of a Web site. 
Louise McGillis and Elaine G. Toms have 
reported that in a usability study of an 
academic library Web site, students “had 
difficulties interpreting menu labels, 
understanding the content of categories, 
and knowing where to start…. Partici-
pants did not know what heading to look 
under, … and had difficulties with ‘Data-
bases,’ ‘Resources….’ ”14 They found that 
although 73 percent of the participants 
completed the task to find an Internet 
resource, this task took, on average, five 
times longer than the other five tasks 
because of difficulties in differentiating 
among terms used to describe Internet 
links. McGillis and Toms further observed 
that “web sites have not been structured 
to respond to information tasks. When 
people approach a website with a specific 
problem, they o en cannot fit the problem 
into one of the options … and cannot ex-
trapolate from the list which tool/service 
is best suited to help them.” Students 
in their study also displayed hesitation, 



   
     

      

    
        

      
    

     
        

       
     

      
       

    
       

       
     

      
       

     
   

     
     

      
      

      
      

        
 

     
      

        
       

      
       

      
        

     
      

     
     

     
      

       
     

     
      

     
        

       
    

     
     

    
   

    
    

   
   

     

     

   

     

   
      

   
    

     

The Academic Library as a Gateway to the Internet 279 

demonstrating what the investigators 
described as “click cost,” where “users 
are very reluctant to click unless they are 
fairly certain they will discover what they 
are looking for.” 

Similarly, Susan Augustine and Court-
ney Greene found jargon to be a problem 
when they observed that participants in 
their study “consistently demonstrated 
difficulty in evaluating the functions 
and uses of a wide variety of electronic 
resources. In many cases, the lack of 
understanding of jargon impacted their 
ability more than the organization of 
the site did.”15 Unclear labels such as 
“resources,” “databases,” and “research” 
obfuscate the content of the library Web 
site. In addition, they found that “every 
participant but one [who indicated lim-
ited Internet experience] used the ‘web 
site search’ … rather than a empting to 
retrieve information through the site’s 
subject organization…. Participants 
consistently desired an easy and famil-
iar search process—regardless of the 
accuracy of the search’s results.” This 
reinforced the findings of Tiffini Anne 
Travis and Elaina Norlin, who reported 
that “students reverted to what appeared 
to be a familiar way of finding things 
online—using search engines rather than 
navigating through a hierarchical order 
of web pages.”16 There are conflicting re-
ports of the value of annotated entries as 
a strategy for guiding users through the 
myriad choices. Laura Cohen and Julie 
M. Still noted that “annotations were in 
short supply on the pages [they] investi-
gated. Users … are being le  to discover 
the differences for themselves without 
the benefit of a librarian’s assessment.”17 
Conversely, Landon Fraser and Craig 
Locatis found evidence indicating that 
“annotations [have] virtually no effect 
on search performance” and that “the 
wording in links has primacy over the 
wording in annotations in influencing 

user search behavior.”18 The dilemma 
faced by Web designers in selecting ap-
propriate terminology and the difficulty 
users have in navigating large Web sites is 
a reminder of why libraries use rigorous 
naming conventions for content.19 

Instruction for Internet Literacy 
There are divergent beliefs about the 
level of student experience and sophis-
tication in Internet use; most reports of 
high student competency with the Web 
are student self-reported. Angela Weiler 
noted that the results of a questionnaire 
administered to freshman students at 
SUNY Morrisville showed even lower 
experience levels than anticipated.20 Susan 
M. Colaric summarized research find-
ings that “users looking for information 
on the world wide web have a difficult 
time developing search queries and us-
ing a search engine.”21 Her study found 
that before instruction, undergraduate 
students demonstrated significant misun-
derstandings concerning search engines, 
specifically in the variations in scope and 
coverage, and the differences in search 
techniques. She sought the most effective 
of three methods for Internet instruction 
but did not find significant differences 
among the approaches; across all of the 
materials and instructional approaches, 
“participants increased in the number of 
appropriate terms included in the query, 
and were more likely to include Boolean 
operators.” 

Although more research needs to be 
done, it seems likely that many forms of 
instruction, including embedded instruc-
tion on search engine interface pages, can 
improve user performance. “Unlike the 
limited, carefully chosen, structured col-
lections of libraries, the World Wide Web 
provides widespread accessibility to vast 
quantities of information; information 
whose content is uncontrolled, unfiltered, 
unorganised, and unclassified.” 22 Yet, stu-

http:anticipated.20
http:content.19


 

      
     

     
       

    
     

      
      

      
     

      
      

       

 

      

      
     

     

      

   

      

     

    

    

     

      

      
    

      

      
       

   

    

     

    
     

    
     

   

    

   

    

280 College & Research Libraries 

dents will search the Internet with us or 
without us; it is imperative that librarians 
take leadership in making the Internet 
search experience a profitable one. 

Web Page Design Supporting Paths to the 
Internet 
Several recent studies have analyzed the 
paths and content of academic library 
Web sites. In a review of 113 medium-
sized university libraries, Bradley P. 
Tolppanen, Joan Miller, and Martha H. 
Wooden found that 70.4 percent of the 
sites linked to Web search engines.23 In 
a 1999 study, Cohen and Still compared 
two-year college and research university 
Web sites for content, functionality, and 
structure.” They found that links to search 
engines were provided by 76 percent 
of research libraries and 64 percent of 
two-year colleges and that links to net 
directories were provided by 44 percent 
of research libraries and 46 percent of two-
year college libraries. Links to net subject 
resources were provided by 84 percent of 
research libraries and 60 percent of two-
year college libraries, and links to Internet 
tutorials were provided by 20 percent of 
research libraries and 52 percent of two-
year college libraries. 

The Current Study 
Methodology 
This study analyzed the home pages of 
114 academic libraries that are ARL mem-
bers. It was conducted during August 
2002 and repeated in June 2003. Changes 
in site organization and content over that 
period are reported. Data were entered 
on Excel spreadsheets to describe specific 
characteristics of paths and content. For 
this study, tutorials were defined as those 
that require interactivity by the user or 
were labeled as tutorials on the referring 
link. Guides were defined as static pages 
of explanation, charts, annotations, and 
examples. The phrase “Internet-searching 

May 2004 

page” was used to describe pages that 
included links to Internet search engines, 
guides, tutorials, and related content. The 
study examined sites for the following: 

• Inclusion or omission of Internet 
search engines, guides, and tutorials; 

• Terminology used to describe paths 
to search engines, guides, and tutorials: 

—sites that used the direct terms 
“Web” or “Internet”; 

—sites that used library jargon; 
—sites that used vague, noninforma-

tive terms; 
—sites that required use of a “site 

search.” 
For the purposes of this study, to 

indicate the primary navigational path 
and nature of content and to eliminate 
redundancy, only the primary path was 
recorded. Sites that provided a direct link 
on the top page to Internet search engines 
and tools were consistently found also to 
offer multiple alternative paths. 

• Structure and organization of 
search engine pages, specifically noting: 

—annotated entries versus those that 
were “links only”; 

—entries that were divided into 
categories or simply arranged alphabeti-
cally; 

—mention of the “invisible Web” or 
“hidden Web.” 

• Types and placement of Internet 
guides and tutorials. Each guide and 
tutorial was described as: 

—being integrated on the Internet-
searching page or isolated in another 
section; 

—having specific content regarding 
the citation and evaluation of sources; 

—being internally or externally pre-
pared. 

• Subject-specific pages, defined as 
sites where the only links to external In-
ternet sites and search engines appeared 
on subject-specific guides prepared by 
librarians. Libraries that provided direct 

http:engines.23


    

     
     

    

    

     

    

       

      

       
       

     
     
      

       

       
     

     
      

       
       

      
       

        
      

    
    

    
    

       
   

     
     

     
     

     
      

     

 

The Academic Library as a Gateway to the Internet 281 

links to Internet-searching pages in ad-
dition to subject-specific pages were not 
included in this group. 

Results 
Changes over Time 
Sites in this study were first examined in 
August 2002 and reviewed in June 2003. 
During that time, eighteen libraries that 
initially had links to Internet-searching 
pages at the top level had either eliminat-
ed the Internet-searching pages entirely 
or kept the content but moved the pages 
several levels deeper. Thus, pages that 
were once easily found became buried, 
locatable only by use of a site search. 

Inclusion or Omission of Internet Search 
Engines, Guides, and Tutorials 
Seventy-seven (67 %) of the 114 sites in 
this study had dedicated Internet-search-
ing pages that presented search engines, 
guides, and tutorials. Eight libraries (8%) 
presented Internet tutorials and guides 
without search engines. Twenty libraries 
(17%) presented external Internet subject 
sites only on subject pages prepared by 
libraries. Nine libraries (8%) made no 
mention of Internet searching or external 
Internet resources whatsoever. 

Terminology Used on Links That Led to 
Search Engines, Guides, and Tutorials 
Not surprisingly, the terminology used 
to describe Internet links was the single 
most important element in determining 
the ease or difficulty of linking to Internet-
searching pages. The surprising finding 
was the high number of libraries that 
did not successfully indicate where such 
pages could be found. Specifically, 

• Use of direct terms “Web” or “Inter-
net”: Only thirty-two (28%) of the 114 
library sites studied used sufficiently 
descriptive terms, specifically, “Web” or 
“Internet,” to ensure that users would 
link to Internet search engine pages on 

TABLE 1 
Descriptive Terms Used to 

Describe Paths to Search Engines, 
Guides, and Tutorials 

Term Frequency 
Search the Internet 6 
Internet search engines 5 
Web search 5 
Internet searching 2 
Search the Web 2 
Explore Internet 1 
Internet 1 
Internet resources 1 
Internet search tools 1 
Internet sites for research 1 
Search engines 1 
Web search [icon only] 1 
Web sites 1 
World Wide Web 1 

the first click. The most common phrases 
were “search the Internet,” “Internet 
search engines,” “Web search,” “Internet 
searching,” and “search the Web.” Table 
1 shows the distribution of these terms, 
as well as additional ones used less fre-
quently. 

• Use of library jargon: Thirty-six librar-
ies (32%) used library jargon that required 
a user to guess, and guess again, a success-
ful path to Internet-searching pages. These 
terms included “electronic resources,” 
“research resources,” “reference tools” 
or “reference resources,” “resources,” 
and “collections.” “Reference” resources 
headings typically link to an amalgam of 
dictionaries, directories, encyclopedias, 
almanacs, weather, calendars, and more, 
inconsistent with content found on Inter-
net-searching pages. Links to any com-
bination of “collections” or “resources” 
o en include some combination of search-
ing for electronic journals, online catalogs, 
peripheral research guides, and special 



 

    
      

      
        

      
  

      
     

      
      

     
        

    
    
       

    
      

        

      
 

    
   

     
     

    
    
       

      

    
     

     
    

       

 
     

   
     

    

   
    

 
 

 

282 College & Research Libraries 

TABLE 2 
Library Jargon Terms Used 
to Describe Paths to Search 
Engines, Guides, and Tutorials 
Term Frequency 
Electronic resources 10 
Research resources 10 
Reference tools  9 
Resources  6 
Collections 1 

collections. The term “digital collec-
tions” is easily confused with “electronic 
resources,” which can then be mistaken 
for a link to anything related to Internet 
searching. Table 2 shows the distribution 
of these terms. 

• Use of vague, noninformative terms: 
Twenty-eight libraries (25%) used vague 
terms, such as “help,” “find,” “quick 
search,” or “facts and guides,” which 
linked to anything and everything; 
they offer no context for users to expect 
Internet-searching information to be 
found. Placement of Internet-searching 
content under any of these headings is 
completely nonintuitive and subjective, 
guaranteed to lead to user frustration. 
Table 3 shows a complete listing of these 
terms. 

• “Site search” as the only means of 
retrieval: Five sites had satisfactory Inter-
net-searching pages but offered no links 
under any label at all; instead, these were 
retrieved only through a site search. This 
may have been a consequence of having 
recently revised home pages, retaining 
content while inadvertently omitting 
links. Although the lack of Internet-
searching links amidst links for other 
content was misleading, the preference 
among undergraduate students to search 
directly in a site search box rather that 
to browse home page menus has been 
documented. 

May 2004 

Structure and Organization of Search 
Engine Pages 
This section describes characteristics of 
the seventy-seven libraries that had dedi-
cated Internet-searching pages. 

• Annotated versus nonannotated links: 
Only nineteen of the seventy-seven librar-
ies offered significant annotated explana-
tions of the scope, content, advantages, 
and search strategy tips for each link. An-
notations can help users make intelligent 
choices among search engines. A passage 
as simple as “Meta Search Engines: Search 
many search sites simultaneously” helps 
make important distinctions. Without 
explanations, users are more likely to 
conclude that search engines are of equal 
value for any particular information 
need. 

• Categorization of entries: Twenty-
three sites arranged their Internet-search-

TABLE 3 
Unclear Terms Attempting to 

Describe Paths to Search Engines, 
Guides, and Tutorials 

Term Frequency 
Search 7 
Quick links 3 
Instruction 2 
Starting research 2 
Books, articles, and more 1 
Facts and guides 1 
Find 1 
Find sites 1 
Help 1 
How do I? 1 
How-to guides 1 
“I need a” drop menu 1 
Library services 1 
Quick search 1 
Services 1 
What are you looking for? 
[drop menu] 

1 



     

     

    

    

     

     

   

    
      

    
     

   

      

     

     

    
     

     

    
      

      

     
     

    
      
    
     

 
    

  

   
    

     
    

        

      
   

     

       
   

     

     

      

       

The Academic Library as a Gateway to the Internet 283 

ing entries in alphabetical order, thereby 
failing to indicate to users, through entry 
organization, the comparative uses and 
strengths of the search engines. Fifty-
three sites categorized entries into types 
of search engines such as meta-search 
engines, directories, and so on; and this 
categorization was beneficial to help 
make distinctions and choices. Nineteen 
sites provided even more advanced 
capabilities for searching specialized in-
formation, such as categories dedicated to 
special engines for “business,” “people,” 
“academic information,” “news and cur-
rent events,” “list” (listserv) sites, and 
audio, video, and graphics, and more. 

• The “invisible Web”/”hidden Web”: 
Although sites such as Librarian’s Index 
to the Internet and the Argus Clearing-
house frequently appeared on search 
engine pages, their unique ability to focus 
on specialized information was usually 
not described. Only twelve sites even 
mentioned the “invisible Web” or “hid-
den Web” as a unique category, and only 
seven of those twelve defined it. 

Guides and Tutorials 
Libraries provided multiple combina-
tions of user guides and tutorials. Of the 
114 sites, fi y (44%) provided links to 
informational user guides and compari-
sons of search engines, and thirty-seven 
(32%) linked to tutorials. Sixteen libraries 
(14%) linked to both guides and tutori-
als. Of these guides, those specifically 
relating to citing and evaluating Internet 
materials were common: thirty-six for 
citing, and forty for evaluating Web 
sources. Only eighteen sites (16%) pro-
vided search engine links only, with no 
supporting documentation, user guides, 
or instruction. Although guides were 
always presented on the same page as 
the links to search engines, tutorials were 
more o en isolated, found only through 
a link related to library instruction or 

information literacy or through a site 
search. Guides were more o en externally 
prepared, whereas tutorials were more 
often prepared internally as part of a 
larger research tutorial. Frequently linked 
guides were Search Engine Watch (h p:// 
searchenginewatch.com), Search Engine 
Showdown (h p://www.searchengine-
showdown.com), and the University of 
California-Berkeley’s Finding Information 
on the Internet (h p://www.lib.berkeley. 
edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Find-
Info.html#Outline). 

Subject-specific Pages 
For twenty of the 114 libraries (17%), ex-
ternal Internet sites were mentioned only 
on subject-specific guides prepared by 
librarians; only two of these twenty men-
tioned search engines or Internet-search-
ing guides. There is great variation in the 
number of external subject links included 
on subject-specific pages, ranging from 
two or three to more than fi y or sev-
enty-five. These pages usually represent 
the most important sites in the discipline 
and may reflect the teaching priorities of 
faculty but do not offer a path to extend 
searching beyond the libraries. 

Discussion 
Libraries are increasingly using the Web 
to direct users to resources beyond their 
own licensed collections, but there is a 
striking and disturbing inconsistency 
among libraries in the presentation of 
these Internet-searching resources. This 
research found that 67 percent of the sites 
studied have dedicated Internet-searching 
pages that include search engines, guides, 
and tutorials. However, only 28 percent 
used sufficiently descriptive terms to help 
ensure that users would link to Internet 
search engine pages on the first click; 
most used jargon or vague terms. Eight 
percent did not mention the Internet at all. 
The evidence is strong that students rely 

http:showdown.com
http:searchenginewatch.com


 

    

     
      

      
    

    
    

    

     

    

     

   
     

     

       
      
       

        

      
     

 
     

     
       

      
    

    
      

    

     
         

   
  

       
    

 

     
    

    
     

    

   
     
      

     
   

      

    

    

    
    

284 College & Research Libraries 

heavily on the Internet for academic and 
personal information needs. Libraries that 
do not offer high-quality Internet search 
engine links, user guides, and instruc-
tion lose a great opportunity to a ract 
students and to position themselves as the 
primary gateway for information. Aca-
demic libraries can significantly enhance 
access to Internet-searching resources by 
focusing a ention on the following: 

• Vocabulary: Vague or jargon terms 
such as “resources,” “databases,” “re-
search,” “help,” and “find” obfuscate 
the content of the library Web site; they 
have multiple possible meanings and 
are not sufficiently descriptive. The most 
common phrases judged to be success-
ful were “search the Internet,” “Internet 
search engines,” “Web search,” “Internet 
searching,” and “search the Web.” 

• Web page design: Library sites with 
Internet-searching pages that are not 
prominently linked from their top page 
should reconsider the design of their 
page. It is perplexing to understand why 
some library sites that at one time gave 
prime attention to Internet-searching 
content chose to diminish the accessibility 
to that content. It is difficult for even an 
experienced library user to guess what a 
particular library might choose to include 
within various descriptive sections of its 
Web pages. In the course of this study, 
the author’s review of many library pages 
was a true exercise in frustration; the aver-
age user would most certainly not have 
pursued browsing to the degree that was 
done for this review. Worse, when it was 
necessary to review a site multiple times, 
the page design was so poor that the expe-
rience of conducting the earlier searches 
was no help in conducting the subsequent 
review. Sites should be designed to 
respond to information tasks. Sites that 
rely exclusively on site search capabilities 
do not support multiple learning styles. 
Sites that use graphics only, particularly 

May 2004 

on the page perimeter, were judged to be 
much less effective in capturing a ention 
and were easily overlooked. Sites that 
had links only on the le  bar, whether 
textual or graphic, were judged to be less 
effective than those placed in the central 
portion of the page. Sites that organize 
search engines by functional categories 
and specialization can be very useful in 
forming cognitive frameworks for search 
engines. Arrangement of search engine 
content by category is a natural organizer 
for students to see critical distinctions. 

• Content: Given that Internet re-
sources are a primary research choice for 
university students, librarians should di-
rect students to excellent Internet resourc-
es and guides in the same way they do for 
traditional library resources. Librarian-
prepared subject pages, though valuable, 
are no substitute for the tools that support 
independent and intelligent consumers of 
information beyond the libraries’ collec-
tions. Emphasis on the invisible Web is 
an important approach to access selective 
and high-quality resources, helping users 
distinguish between types of information 
on the Internet and teaching valuable 
evaluation criteria; failure to highlight 
the invisible Web is a serious omission. 
Annotations represent the value-added 
content that librarians can and should 
provide to allow users to make intelligent 
choices and to influence students’ Internet 
information choices. Without annotations, 
users are more likely to conclude that 
search engines are of equal value for any 
particular information need. Sites with 
very brief, but cogent, annotations about 
sites or strategies are the most successful; 
longer annotations clu er the page and 
are frequently ignored. Internet guides 
are extremely important to be presented 
along with search engine links; sites that 
lack supporting material are incomplete. 
More sites should consider integrating 
tutorials with guides; instructional efforts 



     

     

    
        

    
    

    

     

      
      

 
     

     
    

   
    

        

              

   

 
       

           
           

   

           
              

 
          

            
         

 

             

 

 

              
 

              

 
            

The Academic Library as a Gateway to the Internet 285 

may be strengthened by making stronger 
links between tutorials and related con-
tent pages. Because significant resources 
are invested in tutorial development, it 
would seem wise to maximize their use. 

Conclusion 
Academic librarians consider that part 
of their mission is to serve as the gate-
way to information for their institution. 
They claim a significant responsibility 
for teaching information literacy. The 
propensity for students, especially under-
graduates, to use Internet search engines 
is well documented. Given this reality, it 
is highly desirable for them to maximize 

their ability to incorporate the Internet 
on the library Web site to enable students 
to make the best search engine choices 
and to apply the best Internet search 
strategies. A well-designed presentation 
of Internet-searching content is also an 
opportunity to help clear blurred user 
impressions of library resources versus 
Internet resources. Libraries should 
demonstrate that they are positioning 
themselves to meet the challenges of the 
new information environment. Students 
will search the Internet or without us; it is 
to their benefit and ours that we provide 
paths to help integrate the Internet with 
licensed library resources. 

Notes 

1. Louise McGillis and Elaine G. Toms, “Usability of the Academic Library Web Site: Implica-
tions for Design,” College & Research Libraries 62 (July 2001): 355–67. 

2. Mignon Adams and Richard M. Dougherty, “How Useful Is Your Homepage?” College and 
Research Library News 63 (Sept. 2002): 590–92. 

3. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Information Literacy Competency Stan-
dards for Higher Education.” Available online from /h p://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html. 
[Accessed 8 August 2003]. 

4. Ross Todd, “Information Literacy in Electronic Environments: Fantasies, Facts, and Futures” 
(paper presented at the 2000 IATUL Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, July 2000. 
Available online from h p://educate.lib.chalmers.se/iatul/proceedcontents/qutpap/todd_full. 
html. [Accessed 8 August 2003]. 

5. Pew Internet Project, Pew Internet and American Life, “The Internet Goes to College: How 
Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s Technology,” Sept. 15, 2002. Available online from 
h p://www.pewinternet.org/reports/reports.asp?Report=71&Section=ReportLevel1&Field=Leve 
l1ID&ID=312. [Accessed 8 August 2003]. 

6. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., “OCLC White Paper on the Information 
Habits of College Students: How Academic Librarians Can Influence Students’ Web-based 
Information Choices,” June 2002. Available online from h p://www5.oclc.org/downloads/com-
munity/informationhabits.pdf. [Accessed 8 August 2003]. 

7. Denise Troll, “How and Why Are Libraries Changing?” (dra ), Digital Library Federation, 
Jan. 7, 2001. Available online from h p://www.diglib.org/use/whitepaper.htm. [Accessed 8 August 
2003]. 

8. Deborah J. Grimes and Carol H. Boening, “Worries with the Web: A Look at Student Use 
of Web Resources,” College & Research Libraries 62 (Jan. 2001): 11–23. 

9. Steve Lawrence and Lee Giles, “Accessibility of Information on the Web,” Nature 400 (July 
8, 1999): 107–9. 

10. Bruce Heterick, “E-content: Faculty A itudes toward Electronic Resources,” Educause 
Review (July/Aug. 2002): 10–11. Available online from h p://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ 
erm0248.pdf. [Accessed 8 August 2003]. 

11. Susan Davis Herring, “Faculty Acceptance of the World Wide Web for Student Research,” 
College & Research Libraries 62 (May 2001): 251–58. 

12. Gwyneth H. Crowley, Rob Leffel, Diana Ramirez, Judith L Hart, and Tommy S Armstrong, 
“User Perceptions of the Library’s Web Pages: A Focus Group Study at Texas A&M University,” 
Journal of Academic Librarianship 28 (July 2002): 205–10. 

13. Mark Spivey, “The Vocabulary of Library Home Pages: An Influence on Diverse and Remote 
End-Users,” Information Technology and Libraries 19 (Sept. 2000): 151–56. 

14. McGills and Toms, “Usability of the Academic Library Web Site.” 
15. Susan Augustine and Courtney Greene, “Discovering How Students Search a Library Web 



 

  
             

  
 

  

               
       

 
 

 
   

             

 
 

            

  

286 College & Research Libraries May 2004 

Site,” College & Research Libraries (July 2002): 354–65. 
16. Tiffini Anne Travis and Elaina Norlin, “Testing the Competition: Usability of Commercial 

Information Sites Compared to Academic Library Web Sites,” College & Research Libraries 63 (Sept. 
2002): 433–48. 

17. Laura Cohen and Julie M. Still, “A Comparison of Research Library and Two-year Col-
lege Library Web Sites: Content, Functionality, and Form,” College and Research Libraries 60 (May 
1999):275–89. 

18. Landon Fraser and Craig Locatis, “Effects of Link Annotations on Search Performance in 
Layered and Unlayered Hierarchically Organized Information Spaces,” Journal of the American 
Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (Dec. 2001): 1255–61. 

19. Steven W. Sowards, “A Typology for Ready Reference Web Sites in Libraries,” First Monday 
3 (May 4, 1998). Available online from h p://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_5/sowards/index. 
html. [Accessed 8 August 2003]. 

20. Angela Weiler, “Two-year College Freshmen and the Internet: Do They Really ‘Know All 
That Stuff’?” portal: Libraries and the Academy 1 (2001): 161–67. Available online from h p://muse. 
jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v001/1.2weiler.pdf. [Accessed 8 August 
2003]. 

21. Susan M. Colaric, “Instruction for Web Searching: An Empirical Study,” College and Research 
Libraries 64 (Mar. 2003): 111–22. 

22. Todd, “Information Literacy in Electronic Environments.” 
23. Bradley P. Tolppannen, Joan Miller, and Martha H. Wooden, “An Examination of Library 

World Wide Web Sites at Medium-sized Universities,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 5 (2000): 
5–17. 

24. Cohen and Still, “A Comparison of Research Library and Two-year College Library Web 
Sites.”